DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 9, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11, “the sheets” should be --the one or more deployable cushioning sheets--, and
In line 11, “the slits” should be --the slits of the slit pattern--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 34, 36, 39, 43, 60 and 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama (WO 2021/060416 A1) in view of Diack (US 2,623,522 A), Klunenberg (EP 3 643 635 A1) and Nojima (JP 2006-290356 A).
Regarding claim 1, Asayama teaches a container comprising:
a container interior at least partially defined by
a first wall (1) comprising a first wall interior major surface and opposing first wall exterior major surface (Fig. 1A, 3), and
a second wall (1) comprising a second wall interior major surface and opposing second wall exterior major surface (Fig. 1A, 3), wherein the first wall is configured to be attached to the second wall (Fig. 1A, 2); and
one or more deployable cushioning sheets (2) that are connected (3a, 3b) to the first wall interior major surface and that have a length, wherein the one or more deployable cushioning sheets each have a slit pattern (Fig. 1B, 3, 10-14), wherein
the one or more deployable cushioning sheets are configured to be deployable from a first position to a second position (Fig. 10-14), wherein
in the first position a first portion of the length of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets is disposed within the container interior (Fig. 11-13), and
in the second position at least part of the first portion of the length is disposed outside of the container (Fig. 14-16),
wherein the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprise one or more tension activated expandable sheets (Fig. 1B, 2, 4, 12-16) (Translation and Fig. 1-18).
Asayama fails to teach the first wall exterior major surface having a heat-sealable coating comprising poly(butylene succinate), poly (butylene succinate adipate), poly(ethylene succinate), poly(tetramethylene adipate-co- terephthalate), acrylic, or any combination thereof, such that the first wall is configured to be attached to the second wall with the heat-sealable coating.
Diack teaches a paper bag having a seal area (50) configured to form a joint and further teaches various sealing means are known in the prior art to unite joints in the paper, including glue and a plastic heat sealing coating (column 1 lines 39-53). Klunenberg teaches that poly(butylene succinate) is a well-known heat-sealable material and is desirable as it is a degradable plastic (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the glue (1c) of Asayama with a heat-sealable coating comprising poly(butylene succinate), as taught by Diack and Klunenberg, so that the heat-sealable coating is degradable with the container and as the substitution of one known sealing means for an alternative known sealing means to achieve the equivalent result of attaching the first wall to the second wall would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to alternatively position the heat-sealable coating on the exterior major surface of the first wall such that the exterior major surface of the first wall is configured to be attached to the interior major surface second wall with the heat-sealable coating, as the mere reversal or rearrangement of parts (i.e., the sealing means moved from the interior major surface to the exterior major surface) is held to be an obvious modification absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant or produces a new or unexpected result.
Asayama also fails to teach each of the slits of the slit pattern comprising more than two terminal ends. Nojima teaches an analogous tension activated cushioning sheet having a slit pattern and further teaches that analogous tension activated cushioning sheets are known in the prior art to have a slit pattern wherein each of the slits of the slit pattern comprise two terminal ends (Fig. 10) or alternatively comprise more than two terminal ends (Fig. 1, 7) (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the slit pattern of Asayama with the slit pattern of Nojima, wherein each of the slits of the slit pattern comprise more than two terminal ends, as the substitution of one known slit pattern for an alternative known slit pattern to achieve the equivalent result of forming tension activated cushioning sheets would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the container further comprises a container opening (Asayama: Fig. 3) and wherein the one or more deployable cushioning sheets are deployable such that at least a portion of the length of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets can be moved through the container opening when the one or more deployable cushioning sheets are deployed from the first position to the second position (Asayama Translation and Fig. 2-5, 10-14).
Regarding claim 34, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the one or more tension activated expandable sheets comprise paper (Asayama Translation: description of embodiments, sheet-shaped shock absorber).
Regarding claim 36, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprise one or more paper sheets (Asayama Translation: description of embodiments, sheet-shaped shock absorber).
Regarding claim 39, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein an adhesive (3a, 3b) connects at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface (Asayama Translation: packaging bag configuration, sheet-shaped shock absorber, reference signs list).
Regarding claim 43, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the deployable cushioning sheets are connected to the second wall interior surface (Asayama Translation: other aspects and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 60, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches a method of packaging an object, comprising:
deploying at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets of the container of claim 1 (Asayama: Fig. 2, 3, 11-14);
contacting the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets with the object (Asayama: Fig. 3, 4); and
placing the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets with the contacted object inside the container (Asayama: Fig. 4-9),
wherein the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprise the one or more tension activated expandable sheets (Asayama: Fig. 1B, 2, 4, 12-16) (Asayama Translation and Fig. 1-18).
Regarding claim 62, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the method of claim 60 above, the method further comprises wrapping the one or more deployable cushioning sheets around the object (Asayama Translation: how to use the packaging bag and Fig. 2-7), wherein the container further comprises an opening (Asayama: Fig. 3) and wherein the method further comprises sealing the opening with a flap (1a) (Asayama Translation: packaging bag configuration and Fig. 1A, 2-14).
Regarding claim 63, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the method of claim 60 above, wherein the step of deploying the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprises extending the tension activated extensible sheet (Asayama Translation: sheet-shaped shock absorber, how to sue the packaging bag).
Regarding claim 64, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein in the first position a first portion of the length of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets is disposed within the container interior and a second portion of the length of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets is disposed outside the container interior (Asayama: Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 65, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the heat-sealable coating is configured to be activated by heat to hold the first and second walls together (Diack: column 1 lines 39-53).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richter (US 4,957,791 A).
Regarding claim 35, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprising one or more foam components. Richter teaches an analogous tension activated expandable cushioning sheet and further teaches that analogous cushioning sheets are known in the prior art to be formed with a foam component because of its natural cushioning properties (column 2 lines 23-57 and Fig. 1-4).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively forming the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to comprise one or more foam components, as taught by Richter, as foam has desirable natural cushioning properties and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Kling (US 9,005,096 B2).
Regarding claim 37, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 36 above, but fails to teach the one or more paper sheets being embossed. Kling teaches that paper may be treated so that is stretches and further teaches that embossing paper with a texture is known in the prior art to make paper stretchable (column 7 lines 6-11).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively configuring the one or more tension activated expandable sheets with an embossed texture, as taught by Kling, as the substitution of one known stretchable or expandable paper for an alternative known stretchable or expandable paper to achieve the equivalent result of providing a cushioning sheet would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art. Alternatively, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by additionally configuring the one or more tension activated expandable sheets with an embossed texture, as suggested by Kling, in order to provide the tension activated expandable with an additional stretchable cushioning structure.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nozaki (JP 2002-347848 A).
Regarding claim 38, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the one or more deployable cushioning sheets comprising cardboard or corrugated cardboard. Nozaki teaches an analogous container comprising an analogous deployable cushioning sheet and further teaches that analogous cushioning sheets are known in the prior art to be formed from corrugated cardboard.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively forming the one or more deployable cushioning sheets from corrugated cardboard, as taught by Nozaki, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Race (US 2011/0176749 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 39 above, but fails to teach the adhesive being a repositionable adhesive. Race teaches an adhesive and further teaches that repositionable adhesives are well known in the art and are desirable as they allow for reuse (Abstract, paragraph 14).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively connecting the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface using a repositionable adhesive, as suggested by Race, in order to allow the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to be detached from the first wall interior major surface and removed from the container as desired and subsequently reattached to the first wall interior major surface as desired.
Claims 41, 42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asayama (JP 2020-83334 A, hereinafter Asayama ‘334).
Regarding claim 41 and 46, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface by welding. Asayama ‘334 teaches an analogous container comprising an analogous cushioning sheet and further teaches that analogous cushioning sheets are known in the prior art to be connected to the container by welding using thermoplastic resin (Translation: about adhesive, etc.).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface by welding using thermoplastic resin, as taught by Asayama ‘334, as the substitution of one known connecting means for an alternative known connecting means to achieve the equivalent result of connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 42, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface by lamination. Asayama ‘334 teaches an analogous container comprising an analogous cushioning sheet and further teaches that analogous cushioning sheets are known in the prior art to be connected to the container by lamination using thermoplastic resin (Translation: about adhesive, etc.). It is noted that by definition laminated merely means bonding layers of material together.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface by lamination using thermoplastic resin, as taught by Asayama ‘334, as the substitution of one known connecting means for an alternative known connecting means to achieve the equivalent result of connecting at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the first wall interior major surface and the second wall interior major surface would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asayama in view of Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Race.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Asayama as modified by Diack, Klunenberg and Nojima teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets is temporarily connected to the second wall interior major surface (Translation: other aspects and Fig. 11) but fails to teach a repositionable adhesive connecting the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the second wall interior major surface. Race teaches an adhesive and further teaches that repositionable adhesives are well known in the art and are desirable as they allow for temporary connection and reuse (Abstract, paragraph 14).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Asayama by alternatively temporarily connecting the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to the second wall interior major surface using a repositionable adhesive, as suggested by Race, in order to allow the at least one of the one or more deployable cushioning sheets to be detached from the second wall interior major surface and removed from the container as desired and subsequently reattached to the second wall interior major surface as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Asayama and Diack fail to teach the heat-sealable coating material and the slit pattern, is not persuasive.
Asayama and Diack were not intended to teach the argued limitations as the argued limitations are new limitations not presented in the previously examined claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights